This past Election Day, the American people sent a clear message to Washington: Clean up your act....

[I]t's not enough to just change the players. We have to change the game.

Americans put their faith in Democrats because they want us to restore their faith in government....

The truth is, we cannot change the way Washington works unless we first change the way Congress works. On Nov. 7, voters gave Democrats the chance to do this. But if we miss this opportunity to clean up our act and restore this country's faith in government, the American people might not give us another one.

Restore this country's faith in government? You are driving cynicism to new heights.

***

I am assuming that Scott Matheson has the credentials to serve on the federal court. So do many others. (Not me. I lack judicial temperament.) But the President chooses from a large pool of individuals with good enough credentials. What are the good enough reasons to pick a person out of the pool? To buy the vote of his brother the Congressmen? Obviously not.

And even if you want to argue that it's a good enough reason, Barack Obama won the presidency by holding himself out as powerfully virtuous, as the man who would change the way Washington works. When I voted for Obama, I didn't think that was going to be the set-up for sarcastic, world-weary jokes.

134 comments:

Who voted for this Chicago politician thinking this kind of shit wouldn't happen...

We had McCain, a fairly honorable guy with credentials whom we knew, and an unknown guy from Chicago, land of the sleaziest politics in the US who spent the most cash in the history of elections to steal the Presidency along with deranged groups like ACORN.

Oh yeah, Sarah Palin is an idiot or something, Joe Biden is a great swell white guy.

Constantly getting on our host for voting for Obama is just stupid. She gets it - lots of people here believe she made a mistake.

What do you want? Groveling? Begging for forgiveness?

If someone moves from a position against yours to your position, it's just stupid to harp on them for their original position. Instead, their movement toward the light should simply be welcomed and encouraged. Otherwise, you're just increasing the price of moving in the right direction. Not smart.

MM, I'd agree on each point. Realistically, I'm beginning to wonder if the system is so big and so entrenched that one guy CAN change it - even if he campaigns on it and even if the majority of voters want to believe it.

If there were a quid pro quo, nominating a judge in return for a vote would be a crime. In fact, it might be the rare three-fer, in which the Judge, the Congressman and the President were each guilty of a federal crime.

Of course, everyone knows not to make the agreement explicit and, in fairness, it should be noted that by actually nominating the brother, the President has given up his leverage over the Congressman.

"Whacha got here is your basic high crimes and misdemeanors. And I'm not talking about Clinton's boner either. This is a genuine crime against the system."

It is the House of Representatives that is empowered to conduct an investigation of any high crimes committed by the President of the United States.

He would then be tried for those crimes in the Senate.

So, first things first: Gotta get Republicans in control of the Impeachment Committee of the House of Representatives. That gives them subpoena power and the power to force people to testify under oath.

(Hillary's strategy used in the Nixon case would be an excellent template to follow).

I'll be asking my Congressional candidate whether he supports the investigation of the President for his high crimes and voting accordingly only for those candidates who assure me they would vote to impeach this third-rate burglar we have in the White House so that the Senate can hold a trial.

That would be a good start. She could do it on blogging heads. And then Ann could do a national apology tour where she travels around the country meeting with her readers apologizing in person for her vote.

"If there were a quid pro quo, nominating a judge in return for a vote would be a crime. In fact, it might be the rare three-fer, in which the Judge, the Congressman and the President were each guilty of a federal crime."

I agree. And since we have significant probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, shouldn't a grand jury be empaneled to conduct an investigation and compel testimony from these people in order to determine if a crime has been committed?

Isn't that how our justice system is used against ordinary citizens who don't enjoy Presidential powers?

For whatever reason, The Professor felt a need to vote for someone. That's over. I'd like to applaud her efforts to bring into the discussion that the person she voted for has flaws. Many, many flaws. More people need to bring this to the attention of the people in this country.

Regarding his qualifications, the guys at PowerLineBlog appear satisfied that even without his connection to his brother, Scott Matheson, Jr is a good choice (for him): Thus, President Obama could not have found a more suitable nominee, from a liberal Democratic perspective, than Scott Matheson. It would be unfair to assume that he selected Matheson in order to influence his brother; on the contrary, if Matheson had no siblings at all he would be an ideal liberal judicial candidate.

And for all the people saying McCain would have been better, maybe. I still can't forgive him for McCain-Feingold or selling out George Bush's Judicial Nominees. I suppose we will whether his commitment to collegiality is returned by this senate.

If Matheson is really the type of person who should get a lifetime appointment to the bench, he would not even accept the nomination under these circumstances. I wouldn't have any respect for him as a judge.

Regarding his qualifications, the guys at PowerLineBlog appear satisfied that even without his connection to his brother, Scott Matheson, Jr is a good choice (for him):

Still it's really bad politics. It will now be mentioned in every discussion of the corruption that surrounds Obamacare. How can that Rep vote for the bill now? He is going to get skewered in his own district as well.

Besides, isn't offering government jobs to reps to vote one way or another Bribery. If Obama offers a "job" to a House rep if he were to vote for Obamacare but lose his House race in November, how is that not something of value being offered in exchange for a vote?

"If the health care bill does pass, it's all over. And I mean the USA, because now anything and everything will be passed under reconciliation."

Not really. Here's why:

"Reconciliation" is merely a process the Senate uses to pass certain types of legislation. It uses that process (or rule) only because they've voted to use that rule.

In the past, the only legislation available for this was passing the federal budget or raising or lowering taxes - budgetary issues.

The "reconciliation rule" could be changed by a 51-vote majority.

Reconciliation was introduced into the Senate operating procedures in 1974 by Democrat Party Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd.

It's not part of the Constitution (except for the part that says the Senate can make its own rules of operating.)

What will happen is that the moment "reconciliation" is abused, the Senate will remove it as a process available for passing legislation at all and return to former rules (requiring 51 votes to pass, but 60 votes to end debate).

This is known as the "nuclear option" because it will theoretically destroy Washington. Nothing would ever get done and the gears would grind to a halt.

That thread the other day about the “first” guy at SCOTUS arguments, reminds me of trolls who want to be the first to comment on the Althouse Blog on things Liberal.

One of them is gonna come out when he/she wakes up this AM with a “Tom DeLay was worse” defense or point out that, unlike Liberal stuff like the AGW fraud where Liberals did not have the burden of proof, Prof A & Obama critics certainly have that burden here.

And in the case of fls, cite supposed holdings from famous SCOTUS cases with supposed pronunciamentos from Justices destroying Conservative positions. (I’d say Conservative thought, but some brilliant Liberal would say, as if he/she had thought of it him/herself: “ ‘Conservative thought’ is a contradiction in terms.”)

You know where fls says something like

“Congress has the power to regulate sex, Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), where the Court held that “commerce is more than mere traffic—that it is the trade of commodities—it is also intercourse.”

(Verbatim text from that case)

And, posing as Constitutional scholars & challenging lawyers’ Constitutional bona fides advise us that the Fifth Amendment repealed prohibition. (You have to be old enough to get this joke since liquor is now sold in 750ml bottles rather than “fifths”.)

And, NewHam, in Da Bronx (right next to Inwood) the Orwellian term for bribery was “The Favor Bank”. But these low-rent Bronx/Inwood pols (politicians often being referred to as the second oldest profession) were at least honest in speech & were not Ivy grads. Thus, zee foolish Obama worshiping snobs like David Brooks, Chris Buckley, etc. were not fooled by them & actually held their nose if they voted for them. But they tryed to convince us profanum vulgus that Obama 2008 was The Second Coming. (Or The First, if you are one of those people C4 disdains.)

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhereThe ceremony of innocence is drowned;The best lack all conviction, while the worstAre full of passionate intensity.

……

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? .

The One's victory did not happen because of a single vote in Wisconsin. The swing states which lost it were lost because of three factors: 1) McCain was not a trusted man by conservatives who did not flood to the polls for him like they did to support the war President Bush in 2004, and 2)The housing bubble crisis hit and the habitual reaction was to punish the party in power , and 3) the common feeling was that Obama as a first black man with a loving smile would not be so a President. To win the next one we have no worry about 2. All we need to do is unite around a conservative white woman which eliminates 1 and 3 and we win in a landslide.

"Absolutely. As I tried to tell people before the election, this guy is from Chicago. He is a Chicago pol through and through. There is no way he’s not going to play dirty."

In the one party autocracy that is Chicago, you can get away with this stuff. But, you cannot get away with being this brazen in Washington. As I said above, Obama isn't even a competent crook. Somewhere, really skilled Washington crooks like LBJ and JFK are laughing their asses off at this amateur.

The brother has a lifetime appointment. I doubt if he really cares how it looks. The Representative is screwed. I honestly don't think Obama and his Chicago mafia thought that far ahead. I really think they thought they could get away with this.

"That's kinda unforgivable. People should know that that happened and not fall for it all over again, especially the educated class."

The educated class always falls for the worst and much dangerous lines of nonsense. Nowhere, not Germany, Russia, Cambodia, China or any where else, has the actual middle and lower classes ever bought this garbage. It has always been the students and the upper middle and educated classes who have fallen for it. They just can't resist appeals to their vanity.

Althouse.I admire your candor on your mistake.But you should have known all along. If you were paying attention at all to his background history before Election Day, none of this would be the least bit surprising.

When I voted for Obama, I didn't think that was going to be the set-up for sarcastic, world-weary jokes.

@Althouse. You're obviously an intelligent person. I know Obama was an attractive candidate but I have no idea why you didn't see this coming. You took a leap of faith and now Obama is telling you to take a flying fuck. Are you really that surprised? What in his well-protected background led you to expect otherwise?

Does not this appointment guarantee that Matheson will remain a no vote?

If he changes to yes, everyone will assume its because of his brother. His brother will never get confirmed because the GOP (and their slave Ben Nelson) will never allow the confirmation to come to a vote. He will probably lose his seat.

I live on the border of Jim Matheson's district. Though he's not my congressman (could be with redistricting--we're going to get another rep) I like the guy. I liked his dad too when he was governor of Utah. I simply cannot see Jim changing his vote based on this. His integrity aside, there isn't a chance in hell that Jim Matheson will vote for this monstrosity if he has any desire for a future in Utah politics and I think he does.

What really surprises me is how open Obama is about his deals. There is little to no effort made to conceal the buyoffs for Obamacare or the breaking of other campaign pledges.

He made direct statements during his campaign and then in his first year, when those statements are still fresh, he contradicts himself! What can he be thinking? I guess that we're too stupid to notice?

A Utah congressman is firing back at a political blogger who questions the timing of a well-known Utahn being nominated to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Rep. Jim Matheson says President Obama did not nominate his brother in exchange for a "yes" vote on health care reform.

The blog comes from John McCormack of the Weekly Standard. He says the timing of Scott Matheson Jr. being nominated looks suspicious, especially since Jim Matheson voted against health care reform bills before but is undecided now. Rep. Matheson, D-Utah, says that's not why his brother was picked.

If Democrats had the votes to pass the Senate Bill, they would have passed it. Don't they need to pass it to start Reconciliation?

Thus, isn't all this last effort push by Obama a charade so that Obama in the future can shift blame from himself and the Senate to Congressional Democrats. He can say that he tried his best and that Reid tried his best and that it's the Congressional Democrats that failed.

While everyone's piling on Althouse, I'd like to point out that, as much as her vote disappointed me at the time, she hasn't been proven wrong yet.

Part of her logic for voting for Obama was that it was better to vote for a Democrat with a D next to their name, than it would be to vote for a Democrat with an R next to their name (McCain), so that if (when) everything goes to shit, the proper side gets the blame.

So far, Obama hasn't done any irreversible damage. Crap-and-tax hasn't passed, card check hasn't passed, they haven't thrown open the borders to illegals and given them all ACORN voter registration cards; Hell, they haven't even passed their government-run healthcare yet.

They have managed to spend a whole heaping shit-load of money that we don't have; and things have gone to shit. And Obama and the Dems are receiving the blame, as they should.

So Althouse might have been right, even if she didn't realize how far left Obama actually was, or how Machiavellian he could be in his tactics.

The 10th Circuit has jurisdiction in Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Colorado.

I don't know how they pick judges so I'm wondering why Utah and not someone from Colorado.

[ok,ok I'm pretending to wonder.]

There's also this from Philadelphia Inquirer linked to by The Weekly Standard blog:

Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) said yesterday that the White House offered him a federal job in an effort to dissuade him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the state's Democratic primary.

The disclosure came during an afternoon taping of Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Sunday news-analysis show on the Comcast Network. Sestak would not elaborate on the circumstances and seemed chagrined after blurting out "yes" to veteran news anchor Kane's direct question.

"Was it secretary of the Navy?" Kane asked.

"No comment," Sestak said.

"Was it [the job] high-ranking?" Kane asked. Sestak said yes, but added that he would "never leave" the Senate race for a deal.

Obama has turned out to be exactly what his history told us he would be. But some people wanted to believe in the Hopey-Changey Unicorn Lightworker, and McCain adamantly refused to campaign like he wanted to win (i.e., by pointing out Obama's history).

So, you get what we had here last [election]. Which is the way he wants it. So he gets it.

The people who want a full-grovel apology from Ann sound like the PC university types who demand the same sort of thing from a conservative student for expecting their First Amendment rights to exist on campus. Be interesting to know how many of them voted for The Won (probably the same ones who say they miss Willie).

As for impeachment, he has crossed the line. He thought he could get away with it because, like Willie, he didn't realize the rules in DC are different, not everybody is in on the fix.

John said...

"That's kinda unforgivable. People should know that that happened and not fall for it all over again, especially the educated class."

The educated class always falls for the worst and much dangerous lines of nonsense. Nowhere, not Germany, Russia, Cambodia, China or any where else, has the actual middle and lower classes ever bought this garbage. It has always been the students and the upper middle and educated classes who have fallen for it. They just can't resist appeals to their vanity.

Don't know if I can support that, but Hitler certainly played the upper classes once he got his foot in the door. By very clever maneuvering, he fashioned himself into the Savior who would save them first from the incompetent Weimar Republic, then the Commies, and, finally, the SA. By then, it was too late to stop him.

More seriously, (you could tell that last was unserious, couldn't you? Really?) I can't fault people for not believing in John McCain. I voted for him (more accurately, against the O) but I suspect that if he were president a sweeping health reform bill would have been passed long ago. JM was always good about cooperating with the other side, and he was good friends with Kennedy.

This story has about as much legs as the story of all those conservative car dealerships being targeted by Obama. Remember that juicy theory? And if you out a ? at the end of your title, you can say just about anything! Because you're only asking, not stating.

In other words, just because Obama is awful does not prove that McCain could not have been worse.

"The campaign is over." I'm sure I heard that somewhere. So it is time to concentrate on the next campaign. Let us celebrate any shift in the right direction instead of driving everyone back in the other direction. "I told you so, stupid" is very soul-satisfying, but not very rational.

This story has about as much legs as the story of all those conservative car dealerships being targeted by Obama. Remember that juicy theory? And if you out a ? at the end of your title, you can say just about anything! Because you're only asking, not stating.

Whistling in the graveyard. This is an impeachable offense. Nixon went down for less.

In healthcare compliance, the appearance of "quid pro quo" is best established by avoiding situations which could be interpreted as a conflict of interest. As a law professor, I would figure BO would have to be aware of this (or maybe he just doesn't care). I worry about what the second possibility, if true, says about his true character.

I don't know how they pick judges so I'm wondering why Utah and not someone from Colorado.

My memory is that they pass the wealth around in the Circuit Courts of Appeals. This means that there is, I think, Utah seat(s), Colorado seats, etc.

Now, having practiced law in both states, I can affirmatively state that the attorneys from Colorado are far, far better, and all the seats on that Court should go to Colorado attorneys (ok, I will admit, that is where I grew up and first passed a state bar, but otherwise, I am totally unbiased).

It's only been the first year. I'd say he has gotten on the trail well ahead of the posse so far.

There have been a series of miraculous events that just barely are slowing him down. Things like Climategate, Accorn, The Tea Party, and mostly his incredible arrogance about what he thinks is OK for him above all others like lying and breaking promises right in your face and being so transparently corrupt and dishonest.

All he had to do was tone himself down and he would have gotten much farther as he likely will before he's done.

I can't imagine any other politician getting away with what he has so far. His support is so invested in not looking like fools for supporting him that they back him no matter what. It's a dangerous dynamic and not new in the annals of national disasters of power.

There is great potential for serious long term damage, which is my only real disagreement with Althouse's justification for voting for him. It just was not worth the risk. I hope she is right and I'm wrong. Nothing would make me happier.

Sure thing. I'll speculate that people like you, on the left and the right, are what's wrong with our political culture in all of its facets. I'll further speculate that I might be wrong, but like Barkley, I doubt it.

You didn't answer a single question. Why do you even bother posting here?

Garage...Why is Blago in legal trouble? All he planned to do was pick the best man for the Senate seat. By Blago's standards that required an honest quid pro quo instead of a secret and corrupt quid to buy the quo/office that was his to award as he saw fit. the Feds should FREE BLAGO, or impeach Obama.

Whistling in the graveyard. This is an impeachable offense. Nixon went down for less.

What about actual evidence. What do you have so far. A Weekly Standard article?

I haven't heard Barry deny it. Besides, given the fact that the National Enquirer is now our paper of record because the Gray Lady won't report anything it doesn't like ("all the news that fits, we print"), what makes The Weekly Standard automatically suspect? How often have they been caught in a lie, as opposed to CBS or AP?

I doubt there will be any actual evidence of a quid pro quo in this case. Politics seems to run in families, and it could easily be (or at least claimed to be) coincidence. Nevertheless, if the shoe were pinching on the other foot, the demsm (Get it? I conflated "dems" with "msm." Okay, forget I said it...) would be braying nonstop. Politics.

I live in Congressman Matheson's district, and just talked to his office in Salt Lake. The person I spoke to emphatically denied any connection between Scott Matheson's appointment and Congressman Matheson's support for HCR.

Based on my experience following Jim Matheson's political career, I'm inclined to believe it.

Lance...This is difficult, but the Congressman denying it leaves open the question of corruption. If he had said we discussed it and both agreed on my brother's appointment as Good For the People All Over the Land, then all would be normal politics. Now the amateur President has tried to bribe him unilaterally.

What else is Congressman Matheson going to do but deny a bribe attempt by Obama? Say, "Oh yeah, my votes for sale anytime!"

No matter what Congressman Matheson does on the HCR bill his image will now be tainted. If he votes for it, it will look like Obama bought his vote. If he votes against it, he looks like he's trying to cover up the attempted bribe and loses favor in the eyes of our great president.

Lance...This is difficult, but the Congressman denying it leaves open the question of corruption.

What's the old newspaper line, "I don't care if it's true, just get him to deny it"? So far, nobody has denied what the WS says; they just deny a connection. I'm willing to say Lance is operating in good faith, but tg's point, given raf's observation (Nevertheless, if the shoe were pinching on the other foot, the dem(s and msm) would be braying nonstop.), is still well taken.

garage mahal said...

When will Democrats get it through their thick skull that they cannot appoint anybody to a position that might get the Weekly Standard suspicious!

If the Congressman involved doesn't deny the appointment, I'd give up trying to throw mud at the people who revealed it (but then, that's me)

Is Obama is trying to destroy chances by giving people political cover they can hide behind?

Never underestimate how stupid people in power can be. This could have been an attempt to instill a sense of gratitude in Congressman Matheson (of the mutual backscratching variety) that has just gone horribly wrong.

Matheson is in a no-win situation. And the situation his brother is in (and looking at his creditials, he seems immanently qualified for the position) is worse.

Given the current political climate in DC - or for that matter, at any time -- is it wise to give even the appearance of bribery? Are we supposed to be so naive as to believe this is just a coincidence? I believe the current administration believes so. One of my "friends" posted an incredibly naive statement on FAcebook about how she really really appreciated Obama's doing what was "right" and not caring about the political consequences and for - yes - keeping his promises. It appears our current administration thinks we are all this brainwashed.

My short time (2010) and longer term (2012) goals can be simply stated: Democrat Progressives, Socialists and White House Marxists can GO STRAIGHT TO HELL. And I'm going to do everything in my power both in my home state and supporting Conservative Candidates in other states to get these bastards out of office.

She's already blunted the force of anger that's surely coming to the others who voted for the Empty Suit In Chief.

I predict there will be massive numbers (70% maybe?) who will eventually claim to have voted McCain just so mud doesn't get thrown in their faces. Obama? You really think I'd vote for a yokel like that? Hah! Please don't hurt me...."

Meanwhile, Ann will be blogging merrily away, immune from the slings and arrows 'cause she came clean early and paid the price.

@DadvocateWhat else is Congressman Matheson going to do but deny a bribe attempt by Obama?

I'm not basing my trust on the denial alone. I'm basing my trust on years of observing Congressman Matheson in office. That's what bothers me with the Weekly Standard's insinuation of corruption: there's no background, no track record, nothing.

But you know what? After the Louisiana Purchase and Husker Hustle, I don't trust the Obama administration very much. That's why I felt compelled to call Matheson's office and get their first hand response. I think I've got a good read on the Congressman, but even so I needed a cross check.

Now that I've had a couple more hours to think about it, I've decided the WS columnist (John McCormack) is a bit of a sleaze. Without any evidence but a single coincidence, and without any background, he decides to drag Rep. Matheson's name into the gutter. I think that's bad practice, every bit as bad as the crap liberals and progressives pulled during the previous administration.

In other news, he is about to ruin the healthcare system for ideological reasons. The magical / conspiracy theory thinking that removing the profits / free enterprise from it will make it better. Because central government planning and wage and price controls have worked so well every time they were tried before. :)

2. "Not me. I lack judicial temperament." its an appellate job. Temperament is not a requirement. The only people you ever talk to are lawyers, and yelling at lawyers is not a sin, it is not like you are hurting human beings or anything.

3. Hillary would not bribe anybody. That is beneath her. And if they commit suicide, or their plane flies into a hill side, well that is not Hillary's fault is it?

Guys, lay off the broad. She was correct to vote for Obama. Only the man with his intelligence and personality could have taken the Democrat party from the very top and brought it down in just one year. The man is a genuis!

And I am happy to say that I predicted all this back in November 2008.http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-can-live-with-obama_02.html

In Massachusetts, what President Obama just did is known as "a nationwide search" For example, after ...."a nationwide search"......the retiring Congressman Marty "Two Term" Meehan was chosen as the best person in all of the United States to head up U Mass, Lowell. Obviously, this process shows the energy and diligence Gov. Patrick and the Board of Higher Ed put into competent governance of the Commonwealth. And, it looks much better in the newspapers.

Plan B- Making the Republicans take the wrap for it-didn't work. McCain listing the special favors and deals made by the Democrat leadership to their own members illustrated that.

Now they are on to Plan C-good luck figuring out what that is but it could be that Obama has decided life would be easier without a bunch of Democrats in the House that he can't control anyway.

He'll be free of Democrats having to accept responsibility for everything and they can blame those evil low brow Republicans in the House.

(Democrats do know the value of the Senate and they have probably made the calculation to concentrate their efforts on those races.)

Hell plan D could be to blame it all on the "Tiny Dancer" who's really the evil mastermind, was never for this bill anyway and always knew the House count pretty well.

You could see that maybe they were working at cross purposes and knew that any lawyer would advice Rep. Matheson to vote-NO on this bill now.

And-you calling the Representative's office might have helped to ensure that-which you would have never done if you had been kept in the dark about how the incident all played out.

Get it? You as his constituent had a right o know, and oh btw he is up for re-election in 2010. It will be questionable however, if anyone remembers any of this because not too many are reporting it in the first place.

Who would ever believe that a Chicago machine politician was corruptible? The only excuse for missing that Obama was an accomplished liar is that his main competition on the Democratic side was the wife of a man who has yet to tell the truth.

Jim Matheson is my congressman. I think his district was gerrymandered to give Democrats a congressman of their own.

He's a blue dog. His father was governor here and seemed to be a pretty good guy, but he's a Democrat who helped saddle us with Nancy Pelosi.

If I were he, I'd announce immediately that I pledge not to vote for Obamacare no matter what the President does to swing my vote. If that hurts his brother's shot at getting on the bench, so be it. If he does that, I might vote to reelect him, and I've never voted for him before. I'd have to support integrity like that, in one election, at least.

You really voted for this guy? In spite of the sleazy associations, the total lack of experience, the marxist tendencies in his own writings, and his obvious disdain for his own country?...Why did you vote for him? Because he could give a speech?....Our country is doomed.

This is a patern. He also promotedJudge Arthur Gonzalez to Chief Justice of the Bankruptcy Court 4 days before he dismissed the suit to reconsider the Chrysler Banruptcy. 82 Chrysler dealers have joined this suit that alledges that New Chrysler (Fiat) never said that their Franchises needed to be rescinded in order for the Bankruptcy to move forward. Judge Gonzalez committed fraud on the court, and now records of the docket have been scrubbed from the internet. The case is being appealed. These Chrysler dealers have standing to file Quo Warranto in the DC District callenging the eleibibility of Barack Obama (his father was never a US Citizen, thus he's not a Natural Born Citizen), since the government had taken ownership of Chrysler before their franchises were terminated, Their injury is specialized and different from all other voters. It will happen. And to think that a Law Professor voted for an ineligible non-Natural Born Citizen POTUS! But then, neither candidate was eligible. John McCain was born in Colon, Panama, and is not a Natural Born Citizen either. G. Washington warned against the power of political parties.